Potomac Intramural 2
2020 — Rockville, MD/US
Debate judges Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideCathedral, Emory | sarang.arun17@gmail.com
—***Last time I debated was 2021, so I am a little rusty, bear w. me please
—TLDR: Debate however you like, and I'll attempt to adapt to you - you can do everything/anything you want to do in front of me as long as it's clear. Fair warning though, I'm not really experienced with evaluating Ks or theory or really any progressive arguments but that doesn't mean I won't evaluate them: it just means you'll need to explain the nuances of your argument to me more. I did circuit PF in high school, and I think that's still pretty flay/tame compared to other events.
PF
—Defense is not sticky (explicitly call out drops), 2nd rebuttal must frontline everything that the 2nd speaking team wants to go for in the back half, offensive overviews are fine in 2nd rebuttal, good defense extensions > bad weighing <=> good weighing > bad defense extensions, weigh link-ins (link turns) when first read or I won't evaluate them, you don't need to extend author names when extending an argument, extend all levels of the link chain, I'll default to competing interps, yes RVIs but you must respond to no RVIs adequately if read, collapse or I'll be annoyed, speak slower because I really dislike speed (I have a hard time flowing speed because of auditory issues, where words get jumbled), everything must have a warrant, be kind to everybody in the round, if both teams win offense at the end of the round and don't weigh I'll intervene arbitrarily, disclosure is a good norm (+1 speaks), reading cut cards are a good norm (+1 speaks), I'll rarely presume neg/first (what I end up doing in a given round is subjective)—if I have to everyone's speaks are capped at 27, the median speaks I give out are 28s (so, if you disclose and read cut cards, you start out with a 30), & I'll disclose barring any specific requests.
—Add me to the email chain - no google docs for evidence please, people unshare them after rounds and that's a) unfair to the other team that actually debated in the round b) gross because all you did was cut/find said evidence - it's not your intellectual property so don't be stingy; if you make a google doc despite my request, I'll cap your speaks at 28.
—Content warnings are good and you should read them (within reason, use your better judgement) & barring a legitimate reason (like Wifi problems if we're online), I won't flow off a doc so adjust your speed accordingly. I will clear you twice before I stop flowing; take that as you will.
—have fun & breathe; you got this. Let me know how I can make the debate round more enjoyable for you.
Hey everybody!
I've been a PF debater for five years. I've also judged numerous tournaments and am familiar with most debate jargon and rules.
I don't like to intervene unless absolutely necessary, tell me why you win the ballot. I don't flow crossfire, so if something important comes up, make sure to bring it up in your speeches.
Firstly, and most importantly, I expect DEBATE, so don't be afraid to come across as aggressive or have direct clash. However, MAKE SURE TO ATTACK THE ARGUMENT, NOT THE PERSON!
Secondly, please extend your arguments and weigh. I know it's hard to collapse on certain arguments and make comparisons, but THIS IS ESSENTIAL. I just want to know why A. your main impact outweighs their impact or B. your contention is more likely/their contention is invalid (ex. Our opponent's contention is non-unique because ...)
Thirdly, evidence is very important, but only if you use it right. If you are going to extend a card, tell me what it is, don't just say something like "Our opponent never responded to our ABCD card" and then not tell me why that card is important.
Fourthly, make sure to explain as much as you can to me, because I don't like to assume things in round.
Fifthly, I DON'T CARE ABOUT SPEED, just make it understandable.
Finally, It's okay to be nervous, everybody else is. You've worked really hard for this, just give it your best shot. Don't be discouraged at any point in the round because the tables could turn very quickly.
Good luck everybody :)
I am a cardiologist in the Washington, DC area and I have no background in debate. I have been a parent judge for 5 years, so I do know some of the basic rules.
Please speak clearly and be respectful with asking and answering questions.
Keep your arguments generally socially acceptable.
I prefer probable arguments as opposed to farfetched arguments.
In addition, I am not a fan of references that don't really relate to the topic or distract from the evidence. I want to hear a good debate. Avoid repeating what others have said. Make sure you address previous speakers and expound on arguments.
lay judge
will evaluate all arguments (tricks, friv theory, K's etc.)
no bigotry
As a "Flay" judge, I'm looking for overall perceptual dominance.
Because this is Novice PF, honestly just make sure that you:
- dont make crazy claims
- understand the arguments that you present to me
- can speak clearly and in all speeches
- can clearly show to me why you should win
- use your prep time well
- seem prepared throughout the debate
- are respectful to both the judge and your opponents
- please use all your time in your speeches!
- I will not flow crossfire, so if anything important happens, please PLEASE bring it up!
- I will extend any arguments through mostly my own background knowledge, as long as it isn't based off of evidence
- EXTENDING IS VERY VERY IMPORTANT!! make sure that you try to bring up all things that you want to debate throughout the round, try not to drop anything (important)
For novice, my speaker point average should be ~28. anything heavily above or below this will be explained. I don't normallt have low point wins.
Add me to any E-mail chain, my email is ericchen869@gmail.com
Instagram: @_gen.eric
Lastly, if you wanna Uber Eats me bubble tea for +2 speaker points, my address is here < Hyperlink,
my order is oolong milk tea with boba, less ice & 75% sugar PLEASE DON'T SEND ON THE 23RD
I have been a parent judge for 5 years. I can flow a round pretty well but am not a technical "flow" judge.
Speaking:
1. SPEAK SLOWLY
2. Don't be rude or offensive in the round
3. Speak with clarity and elucidation
4. ALWAYS signpost and roadmap: it makes it much clearer for me as a judge if I know what you're talking about
Argumentation:
1. I am NOT familiar with counterplans, theory, or kritiks so please don't run them or I won't be able to judge you appropriately.
2. Summary and FF consistency is important when evaluating arguments
3. Have impacts and WEIGH. Too many times have I seen debaters just say we win because of X argument while never explaining why that argument is the most important to evaluate in the round.
4. Please don't run crazy and difficult to understand arguments. If your opponents can't understand the argument, I probably can't too. If you do have a less common argument, please warrant it and provide ample evidence, and I might be able to understand it.
Evidence:
1. I appreciate citations (Author's last name, month and year, and source if you can).
2. Please don't lie about your evidence; if you are, I most certainly won't vote for that argument.
3. I will call for evidence if it becomes an important point of dispute in the debate.
4. I am a strong believer in quality > quanitity. Meaning, don't tell me you win because you have more evidence, tell me you win because your evidence is more reliable, or just don't focus so much on evidence accuracy.
5. I usually flow arguments, not evidence, so telling me to refer back to some random person isn't sufficient.
How to win:
If you do these five things better than the opponents, you will win:
1. CLEARLY identify the arguments in the round and which ones are important
2. WEIGH and preferably give me a weighing mechanism to warrant me voting off of a specific argument
3. EXTEND arguments and enunciate their importance throughout the round
4. ADDRESS all the arguments in the round, and highlight dropped arguments
5. TELL me a story/narrative that uses persuasion not just evidence
I follow the NSDA guidelines for speaker points. I will give 30s if I think you are one of the best I've seen.
daniel (he/him)
if you have any specific questions ask me before round.
==========================================================================================
<< ONLINE DEBATE >>
1. evidence: if an email chain is made make sure to add me on it
2. general: mute yourself when not talking, keep track of your prep when reading cards (be honest !!)
==========================================================================================
<< PF >>
general stuff:
- tech > truth but the more squirrely an argument becomes the more work you'll have to do to convince me that it's a valid argument
- signpost throughout your speeches
- speed is fine but just make sure i can understand you, if you speak too fast, i'll stop flowing and just stare at you. please don't do that. it'll be awkward for the both of us.
- i think CX is binding but i won't flow it, if something important happens tell me in the later speech
- i presume neg by default but this should never happen, am open to other presumption args (e.g. 2nd, aff)
- if i am told to call for a card and i find that it contradicts what the person running it says i'll toss it out and pretend it was never mentioned
- i average 28 speaks
- please preflow before round, i won't let you do it in the room if the round should've started already because delays suck
- i like off-time roadmaps but it make it quick
good stuff
- frontlining in 2nd rebuttal
- comparative weighing -- simply throwing out buzzwords doesn't count, interact with your opponent's offense!
- warranting your evidence
"bad" stuff (avoid!)
- progressive args (theory, kritiks, etc.): not a "bad" thing perse but i don't have much experience with these at all so i can't promise i'll make a good decision over them (if theory is run make sure it's in response to actual abuse)
- don't call me judge, i think it's weird; speeches are directed towards me anyways
- don't read a framework that's just util (cost-benefit)
- card dumping
- just reading an author tag when extending evidence is not enough -- explain what the evidence says
- being rude during CX is very lame
This is my first time judging in a public forum debate. However, I am knowledgeable about public speaking. I know a little
about the topic.
To me, sound reasoning, succinct organization, quality argument, and clear delivery are important considerations. Talking like an
auctioneer will not help me catch all of your arguments and believe that you have delivered clarity.
Hi!
This is my 4th(ish) year of debate, and my first time judging. I am very excited! :)
Some thing to keep in mind:
- Please share cards in the chat.
- All frontlining needs to be done in 2nd rebuttal and 1st summary. I will not consider it if it is after these.
- Your summary should be reflective of the entire round. Make sure you weigh comparatively and collapse in here as well.
- Make sure you signpost in your summary and rebuttal speeches. Off time road maps are encouraged!
- You should make clear points and tell me what arguments still remain.
- Extend offense all through out the round and defend your arguments well!
- Trigger warnings are very important to me.
If you have any questions about any of this, please ask me before the start of the round :)
Speaker points:
- I will give you high speaker points as long as you are kind and respectful to your opponents and present all of your information in a clear way.
Most importantly, have fun and don't stress!
About Me:
I am a junior at Thomas Wootton High School currently involved in PF debate. I have been debating for about 3 years on and off so I do know most debate jargon. As a judge, I really love to hear unique args because hearing the same stock args over and over again gets very old, very fast. With that being said, rest assured that I will try to still take down all the points of your arg even if I have already heard it just in case there is some new nuance. I believe that in debate you must have respect so I hope to see you all be respectful towards your partners and your opponents as well as to me.
Lastly, remember to HAVE FUN. At the end of the day, the reason we participate in extracurriculars is for our enjoyment so remember to keep your head up and go for it.
ABOUT SPREADING:
I can flow pretty fast, but please don't spread so fast that I just can't understand you at all (ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT FOR ONLINE DEBATES). If you are speaking fast but you are still clear that's acceptable.
Additional Speaks:
- None atm
General Judging:
I will follow the flow and if you don't extend something in summary then I will weigh it lower than something that has been extended and pointed out to me. I'm not going to do much work for you.
I try to be tech over truth but don't test that by saying something blatantly false. Use your common sense.
If your time runs out and you are still speaking, I will allow you 3 extra seconds to finish your sentence and nothing more. Do NOT start a new sentence when you are overtime (seems obvious but it has happened before).
Miscellaneous:
1. Try not to be super rude during cross. It is ok to push your opponent and assert yourself but don't do it so much to the point that you are basically just not letting them respond. Everyone is trying to win, but ultimately we want to be having fun too.
2. You can time yourselves, but I will also keep a timer on. If you would like me to signal you for half time or one minute left just ask.
Speaks Key:
30 - You are literally a god at speaking
> 27 - Above Average Speaks
27 - Average Speaks
< 27 - Below Average Speaks
For debates on 100 speaks just scale up.
hey i'm sabeen!
i really enjoy judging at tournaments! this is my second year of debate. if you have any questions, please make sure to ask them before the round starts.
some things to keep in mind:
- weigh comparatively
- make sure that the data and statistics you use in your case are true and supported by a credible source
- only collapse if you need too
- defend your case properly
- don't make assumptions during the round; i will lower your speaking point average if you do
- refrain from being aggressive during the round; i will lower your speaking point average if you are
- and overall just be kind and have fun!!
speaking points average around 28 and are based off:
- how successful your arguments are
- a summary that clearly discusses the entire round
- effective rebuttals
- and your ability to defend your case
Hi! I'm Anita (she/her), a freshman at Northwestern University. I recently graduated from National Cathedral School in Washington D.C., where I debated Public Forum for four years. I'm definitely not a lay judge but i'm also not super comfortable with speed/prog. If you have any questions, feel free to let me know! My email is anitali2002@yahoo.com.
Please keep track of prep! Also I don't flow card names so if you say "extend Bob," i'm not gonna know what you're referring to.
Some things I like:
· Second Rebuttal has to frontline everything you're collapsing on and address all turns your opponents put on your case or concede to the delink.
· Weighing is super important! Weighing needs to be comparative (don’t just tell me why your impacts are important, tell me why your impacts are more important than your opponent’s impacts). Please start weighing in summary. No new weighing in Second FF.
· Please signpost + give off time road maps! Tell me what you're responding to.
· Please explain your arguments! Don’t just read statistics and then expect that to stand on itself, explain to me why that statistic is true. (warrants are important!)
· If you want me to evaluate something, it needs to be in speech and extended across all speeches
· In second half, tell me what you're winning off of, whyyou’re winning, and tell me why I should be voting for you!
. 1st summary is the last speech where I will accept new arguments. New weighing and cross-apps are still okay after tho. New implications? I'll think about it.
. PLEASE make sure impacts are terminalized and quantified!
Theories/Ks
· I don’t really understand Ks and Theories well so if you do run one please explain it well and in a manageable speed.
· If I feel like you’re running theory/ a weird overview/underview just to get a easy win, the chance of me voting for it is pretty low, especially if your opponents point out that it's abusive and explain why. But if you’re running theory because your opponents are actually being abusive, I can vote for it.
Behavior
· There’s a difference between being assertive and being aggressive. If I see you being overly aggressive, especially during cross, I’ll take off speaks and I’ll comment on it in my RFD. Also it can decrease your chances of winning.
· If you’re speaking quickly and make sure you ask your opponents if that's okay. I will try to flow to the best of my ability but I will most likely end up missing stuff. Having a speech doc is not an excuse to speak as fast as you want. I will only look at your speech doc for the duration of the speech.
.I'll only look at a card if you tell me to look at it.
. If you incorporate a tiktok dance or kpop choreo into a speech, I will increase your speaks up to 3 points.
. If you can guess my BTS bias or Blackpink bias, I will boost your speaks (prob only like 0.5 max lol)
tjhsst '24 he/him (some parts of my paradigm are stolen from alec boulton)
Add me to the email chain dli447890@gmail.com (feel free to email after with questions!)
tech = truth (a dropped argument is true, unless it's just plain wrong. The more goofy an argument, the lower my threshold for responses is)
grand cross is a grand waste of time. if you skip it +0.5 speaks, and no, you don't get any extra prep time if you skip it. In terms of the other crossfires, I don't pay attention to them, so tell me if something important happens.
Speed trades off with clarity, the faster you go, the less likely I am to be able to flow everything you say. If it's not on my flow, it doesn't exist, and I don't flow off docs. So basically, don't spread.
-Traditional-
Give me real extensions. "Extend our argument" is not an extension. "Extend Cortez" isn't one either. I also don't care for the card name. I need warrants.
Dump if you want, but at least be responsive. I don't care for your other contentions or "DAs," get good at debate and use your brain. All your responses should be warranted and implicated. Turns or link-ins need to be weighed.
Second rebuttal needs to frontline. It may be strategic to collapse.
Defense isn't sticky. If it wasn't in summary, it no longer exists.
Weigh. "We outweigh on probability because [insert a response you forgot to read]" is not weighing. If an argument is won, the probability is 100%, unless their evidence specifically says "there is an x% chance this happens". Scrap weighing categories like "time frame" and "magnitude," just tell me why your offense is more important.
Terminalize your impacts. "20% GDP" isn't an impact. What does 20% GDP lead to?
-Progressive-
don't lol
Paraphrase and don't disclose if you want. An absurd amount of judges are incredibly biased and basically auto-drop teams that don't paraphrase or disclose as long as any half-written interp is read because they think they're doing something good. It's disappointing.
-Evidence-
I'll call for evidence that I think is important or if I am told to call for it. If you have terrible evidence ethics, I'll call you out, drop the evidence from the flow, and take speaks off or give you the L depending on how bad it is. If you don't give the warrant in the round, I don't care how good the evidence is.
You don't need evidence for everything (I require evidence in constructive though). The "arguments start with research and evidence" coach/judge mentality strangles creativity and free thought. If you have a logical claim, back it up with logic. Be careful with what you may think is "logical," you might not see the hole in your chain, and that's part of what we are doing debate for. If something requires evidence (pointing out quantifiable changes for example), then evidence is needed. If one side has evidence and the other has bad logic, then the evidence will be weighed heavily. Use your brain, it's a good one. Evidence is very nice, and research is important, but don't let it be the cage of your mind.
good evidence = good analysis > bad evidence > bad logic
-Speaks-
I will go from 27-30, 28 average (unless you're racist or something). Speaks decided based on crossfire, rhetoric, & strategy. Being funny or entertaining will probably boost your speaks.
W30 if you rap every speech
+0.5 speaks for a good forehead joke
+0.5 speaks if you roast your partner in speech/cross (it must be a good roast, and must be tied to the debate in some way)
my email is joanneli183@gmail.com
flay
if you're gonna go faster than 200wpm, send speech doc
spreading = bad
signpost
collapse, extend, weigh
warrant everything out, card dump = bad
don't use crossfire as a rebuttal, ask questions
progressive debate is cool
keep track of your own time
be respectful
Tech > Truth
I'll vote off of what is most cleanly extended & weighed
Don't do theory unless the violation is serious
Spread at your own risk
hi!
i'm christina (she/her) and debated for wootton pf. ask me for clarification before the round starts.
VBIPHL: Do not read progressive arguments against teams that clearly cannot engage with them in order to win. My ballot/your speaks will be reflective of your poor decision and you will be upset with the result that I input.
misc:
1. i'll evaluate any argument you can think of, however, in the case where the safety of a debater is compromised in the room (be it any -ist argument or a lack of TW on a sensitive topic) i will intervene. tab has the option to specify pronouns for a reason, misgendering is not ok.
2. speed is ok but sacrificing clarity is not ok.
3. probably won't call for ev, imo a bit interventionist unless someone explicitly asks me to and the round is unresolvable.
4. i have a very bad poker face so if i dont/do like something you'll know.
5. i am most receptive to substance and i will do my best to judge as technically as i can.
round:
1. second rebuttal must frontline turns - conceded turns/contentions in rebuttal have 100% strength of link.
2. DAs/ADVs/offensive OVs are fine in second rebuttal to an extent but i have a higher threshold for contextualization/warranting/weighing/etc.
3. DLs must be conceded in the following speech (either 2nd rebuttal or 1st summary) but also must be explained.
4. defense is not sticky 4 first summary.
5. i appreciate good extensions. i do not care about card names. extend warrants with case.
weighing:
1. weighing ideally should start in rebuttal. i'm not evaluating new weighing in final focus, including first final.
2. probability impact weighing doesn't exist.
3. metaweigh/comparative weighing -- if there is none i'll probably prioritize pre-reqs/link-ins/co-ops -- if there is none of that i will just count how many weighing mechanisms there are.
prog:
i will do my best to judge to your standards. i dislike progressive debate so please only read it if there is justifiable abuse in the round (paraphrasing/disclosure dont count).
1. general defaults (no RVIs, CI > reasonability, drop arg over debater, only if teams don't tell me what to do).
2. do not read theory against teams who clearly cannot engage with it (novices) i can tell and my ballot/your speaks will reflect that >:(.
4. little to no exp w K's, therefore K lit needs to be accessible -- you should also be extending K's/shells more rigorously than case bc it may be harder for me/others to grasp initially (especially if they are not topical).
5. no tricks.
i'm most receptive to substance but i'll do my best to evaluate whatever you read.
debate in a way that makes you happy and comfortable, post-rounding is fine, good luck!
hi! i go to winston churchill high school (md) and i have 3 years of public forum experience.
.
general preferences + info:
-speed is ok but don't spread, please speak clearly
-tech > truth as long as the argument makes sense
-weighing is super important!! warrant and explain why your argument is more important than your opponent's
-frontline in second rebuttal
-warrant things clearly, unwarranted arguments don't mean much to me
-things in final focus should be brought up in summary
-don't be rude in cross
-please signpost!
.
feel free to contact me: catherinenan158936@gmail.com
I am judging for the first time. My child is a 6th-grade debater and I have been in the audience. I have a preference for calm, logical discussions rather than aggressive attacks.
Greetings!!! I have children that debate at the Middle School and Varsity levels, but personally have limited experience judging. I generally have an open mind and do well at judging an argument on merit, but here’s the kicker - I do not respond well to people talking very quickly or incomprehensibly. Having said that, I look forward to hearing (well) from you!
Updated for Jul 2023 Potomac Summer Camp Debate Tournament
- Tech > truth. A bit rusty.
- Please weigh!
- Extend your arguments
- Frontline in second rebuttal i.e. respond to at least part of the previous rebuttal in the next speech
- Warrant and implicate your arguments
- Signpost i.e. tell me where you are, which argument you're talking about, etc.
- Ok with speed but just be clear. Articulation and signposting will affect my comprehension of the round more than speed
- At camp, so will make decisions based on pedagogy as wins and losses determine the direction of the activity
- Speaks: don't look for anything in particular but obviously will tank if people are obnoxious/condescending
- Prog: I usually flow it. I had very little experience with theory and particularly Ks/tricks, read at your own risk. I will drop what I believe is frivolous theory/theory against novices and give 26's.
If you have any other questions please ask!
This is my first time working as a judge. I cannot follow you if you speak too fast.
Hello debaters!
A little bit about me: I'm a high schooler and I've debated for about two years now in Public Forum. I would say I'm fairly experienced with debate, the format, and the terminology.
I'm comfortable with some spreading, but if you do talk too fast, I may either ask for you to repeat something if I believe it is crucial to the round, or I won't write it down on my flow.
Because I am currently doing my own prep for the topics you are debating, I have done topic research and I do know some of the stock arguments that some of you might be running.
I strongly believe that public forum debate should be a fair and fun experience for all debaters. That means I will not have my own personal thoughts or biases influence my decision. However, here are some of the things that I do look for:
-If you go beyond your speaking time, I will signal you. You will then have 30 seconds remaining to finish your speech before I won't flow anything after that.
-I'm fairly lenient with prep time, if you do end up going over by more than 30 seconds, I will force you to stop because it won't be fair to the other side.
-Signposting is not required, but it would be nice if you could. To me when one does signpost they are signaling me to pay closer attention to this area, which may help you in my decision.
-An offroad map is not required either, but it would be nice if you could.
*I'm totally okay if both teams agree to skip grand crossfire for 45 seconds of extra prep time
Voting-wise:
I believe any argument can be a fair argument to present, as long as it is relevant to the resolution. How I vote on it comes down to how you end up using your argument to try to win the round.
I prefer the QUALITY of your side, not the QUANTITY of your side. I'd rather listen to a debate where your argument has solid reasoning and structure, rather than a debate where one compares whose evidence is better and how much evidence they have.
That being said, I'm not that familiar with theory or K debates. You can run it, and I'll be happy to listen to it, but you may not be satisfied with how I will evaluate it
There is one exception to the stuff listed above: As a personal debater, I'm am not fond of an argument solely based on political controversy, a morality debate, or ethics. (Ex. If you simply accuse the opponent side of being racist, I will not buy a single thing you say related to that, and I will deduct speaker points)
If you are disrespectful or appear condescending to your opponents, I will automatically give you L20.
Content-wise:
There are three things that make a strong argument and they will be something I will consider
1) Organization (The side that is clearer to vote on is something important for any judge)
2) Link, Warrant, and Impact (I cannot leave this out of an evaluation. I can't simply buy something if you can't give me a reason for it. Also if you don't have a clear impact, I'm afraid I don't know what to vote on for your side)
3) WEIGHING (This is important, especially if the argument becomes muddled. Tell me why your side is better than your opponents. Another pointer: I'm not really fond of weighing only in final focus, if you weigh earlier in summary it will stand out more strongly to me)
Other Pointers:
*If a card is called, I do expect the team who needs to give the card to provide the card.
*If a card seems too good to be true, I may ask for it at the end of the round.
*I will give a speaker point to your side if I find your argument interesting or if you make me laugh.
*Do NOT worry about anything debate-tech related, your own arguments, terminology, or other concerns. I can assure you I will provide each side with sufficient feedback about all of the following at the end of the round. Just make with what you know and have.
That's it from me! Don't stress too much about my paradigm, what matters most is that you take your time, have belief in yourself and what you have prepared, and strive to do your best!
Senior at Churchill.
add me to the email chain: benjaminstang@gmail.com
tech > truth
General:
1. DEBATE IS A GAME
2. I don't call for evidence unless someone tells me to
3. If it might be triggering or you're not sure, just read a TW...
4. Signpost.
5. Should frontline in second rebuttal cause defense is sticky
6. Extend anything you want me to evaluate through summary and final focus
7. Speed is key
8. You get one minute to pull up evidence. After that, I will not consider it unless you have a legitimate reason (ie. wifi is slow, they called for a lot of cards, etc.)
Progressive:
Only have a little experience running it myself but am fairly confident I can evaluate it properly.
Random stuff/tips
1. final focus should parallel summary
2. comparative weighing is always better than just saying "we outweigh on magnitude."
3. Cards must be cut.
About Me:
I have been debating for 5 years
I am a flow judge but if you speak too fast I will not be able to write down the arguments. I can process what you are saying at high speeds but remembering it long enough to write it down is difficult for me. Off time road maps and signposting are very useful to me.
My email is Dhira@aaryaveda.com for the email chain.
He/Him
Tech>Truth
Time your opponents and feel free to interrupt them gracefully when the time is up. Please let them finish there sentence though and don't cut them off rudely.
How I vote:
Please don't go for every argument on the flow unless you are sure you can win all of them. Collapsing on one thing makes it very easy for me to compare points in the round.
Extend arguments that you know you will go for fully through the round. I hate it when a debater just says "cross apply my first contention" with no analysis or says "extend my partners responses from rebuttal". If they are key responses PLEASE repeat them in your speeches. The only speech where I don't need responses heavily extended is in Final Focus because I know 2 minutes is not a lot of time and I would prefer it if you use that to analyze and weigh.
Please do comparative weighing in both summary and final focus. If you start in rebuttal that is fine to. Please don't assert your impact and call it weighing if you are gonna do that you might as well not weigh at all.
Speaks: I will try to give high speaks but will tank them if you are rude or offensive.
Evidence: I don't care to call cards myself unless there is a lot of clash on it but feel free to call and indict, I will flow and weigh it.
Theory: Try to avoid unless you know you can do it well. Personally I think if you are running theory and you are not in varsity you need to calm down.
At the end of the day. Debate is about having fun as long as we enjoy ourselves nobody should have a problem
hey! i'm ethan. I do debate sometimes. Retired from nat circuit to become a full time meme debater.
Judging conflicts: Dababy Rizz Academy for the Gifted Talented and Exceptional, Wootton HS, Potomac
add me to the email chain: ethan.wanq@gmail.com
tabula rasa
tech>truth
Will evaluate any and all arguments except ones that promote some form of bigotry (i.e. racism good, xenophobia good, etc).
Theory is fine.
Topicality is optional.
All frontlining must be done in 2nd rebuttal.
IF YOU DO NOT WEIGH YOU WILL LOSE.
Respond to frameworks in rebuttal.
Defense is sticky.
Anything not extended through final focus will not be evaluated.
Roadmaps + signposting... please
speaker points are dumb. 30 speaks if u venmo me a dollar.
i presume first unless you tell me otherwise
Arguments brought up in CROSS WILL BE PUT ON THE FLOW
its online debate... LOOK STUFF UP NO ONE CAN CALL YOU OUT ON IT. Your opponents probably will.
Use chatgpt for analytics if you really can't think of anything. Better than dropping the arg.
Theory specifics:
imo the point of theory is to give debaters a tool to shape the space in their vision
I evaluate "friv"
I default to counter interps
K specifics:
I treat topical Ks and non topical Ks the same
My devices do not use the Gregorian calendar
https://darchai.com/
SEND ME A SPEECH DOC IF UR READING MORE THAN 1000 WORDS
If ur spreading is clear u get extra speaks proportional to how many words u read.
tl;dr; I WILL INTERVENE IN THE ROUND unless you tell me not to
Hello I'm kristen, i debated PF for three-ish years
I am not a very technical judge. I have a working knowledge of prog arguments like Ks and theories and such but have little experience evaluating them. Feel free to run them if you want at your own discretion. I am also quite bad with speed -- if you start speaking at over 250 words per minute my flow will be weird. Debater jargon is fine but personally prefer not to have to hear fake words. Speaks never dip below 27 unless you're like racist or something.
Some things i like to see:
- warranting all the time
- weighing/comparative analysis in rebuttal responses
- timing your own prep and speeches
basically just follow basic norms and u'll be alright!
Hello! I'm a sophomore at Richard Montgomery High School. If you have any additional questions, feel free to email me :)
General Info:
- Tech > Truth, but don't run any overly strange arguments. DO fully extend your arguments through the flow.
- Please SIGNPOST. If I don't know where you are on the flow, I'll have a really hard time following you.
- Novices: Please try to use all of your given speech time to the best of your ability! Time is super important in debate when it comes to strategy.
- Don't use offensive overviews in second rebuttal because I find them to be abusive
- If you're speaking second, please try to frontline first rebuttal to the best of your ability. Prioritize responding to any turns.
- I don't flow cross. If you want to use something from cross, make sure you tell me during a speech.
- I won't vote off of theory/Ks.
Speaks:
- High speaks will be given to teams with good strategy, follow the flow, and are verbally convincing.
- Be nice and respectful to your opponents! Your speaks will take a hit if you aren't.
- Please refrain from saying any racist, sexist, discriminatory, generally problematic things.
Summary/FF:
- Extend all warrants and impacts.
- Summary and FF should be close mirrors of each other.
- PLEASE WEIGH! Try to do a lot of comparative weighing. (explain why your impacts are more important or why your links are more sturdy.) If I have to weigh for you, then it'll be a lot harder for me to vote for you.
- Any defense that is frontlined in second rebuttal needs to be responded to in first summary, but defense that is unresponded to does not need to be extended into first summary.
Speed:
- Especially since we're online, if you sacrifice clarity for speed or spread poorly, your speaks may be lowered.
- Generally, please try to speak at a comprehensible pace.
Overall, don't stress too much during round. Debate is an awesome learning experience so don't forget to have fun while you're at it!
Hey everyone!
I’m a parent judge and don’t have a lot of experience judging.
For the november/december topic, I would say that I have enough knowledge on the topic to understand most arguments.
Please do not run any squirrely arguments.
I am more of a truth>tech judge rather than a tech>truth judge.
I vote off of what makes the most sense to me. If you want to win my ballot, then you need to explain your argument thoroughly. I would rather you spend all of your speeches explaining your argument rather than spend the whole time talking about your opponents case.
Weighing is important but Case is the most important thing in the round.
Please do not speak fast, a 600 - 700 word case would be preferable.
I do speaks off of how well I can understand you.
This is my first time judging the activity in a minute, I'm not familiar with all the acronyms associated with this topic yet, so don't assume I will know them. Please give holistic arguments concerning the entire round including but not limited to: weighing the different issues against each other, and explaining what you think with evidence.
I am a parent lay judge. Please do not spread and please be nice to each other.
I did nat circuit PF from 2018-2022 but I am hard stuck -1 IQ so pls dumb stuff down!
I prefer 1st summary frontlines turns at minimum and 2nd summary address all voting issues
1 other peeve, I rlly prefer u email all the ev u plan to read in a speech before you do it to the other team (+ me if u want), separately "calling evidence" only should be done in a "so where does your evidence say xyz??" kind of clarification. Too much prep skewing going around. Or just disclose but if u disclosed u should have the stuff ready to pull up anyways
If u do the ev stuff + are nice to the other team I'll give u 30s. Thx :)
Not voting on tricks/friv
Other than that debate how you want to
Thanks homies
.
junzhix@upenn.edu
Hi!
Some General Stuff:
- Be nice!
- Tech > Truth
- Some speed is fine, but please don’t spread.
- I don’t flow cross; if you want me to flow anything, bring it up in a speech.
- Warrant your arguments well; treat me as if I don’t know anything, and explain things well.
- Frontline in 2nd rebuttal and 1st summary; don’t introduce any new arguments in second summary or ff.
- Please signpost and give off-time roadmaps, just so I know where you are on the flow.
- Extend everything you want me to evaluate into FF, this includes any defense, and please weigh!
Other Stuff:
- Don’t be rude or disrespectful in any way.
- Don’t talk over people in cross.
- Most importantly, have fun and enjoy the debate!
I am a new parent judge to the debate. I know little of the public forum format despite that I may know the topic relatively well.
Background:
Currently a sophomore at Georgetown University. I have experience with APDA and I used to compete in the PF national circuit under Thomas S. Wootton High School.
TLDR: I flow. I like it when teams interact with their opponents' args. Warrant and impact things out. DO the work and you are more likely to get my ballot.
Preferences:
1. Speed:
I can handle 800-word cases but if you plan on going faster, don't expect my flow to be perfect unless you provided a speech doc. If you plan on spreading, please provide speech docs to everyone.
2. Extensions:
Everything in final focus should be in summary if you want me to evaluate it. The only exception to this is the 1st speaking team does not have to extend defense in summary. I'm not a big fan of new responses in 2nd summary. If you make new responses and your opponents call you out for it, there's a big chance I won't give it full weight.
Also, don't just extend card names. Extend the warrants.
3. Evidence:
Make it clear in speech if you want me to call a card. I will drop cards that I feel are misconstrued from the flow.
4. Cross:
I generally don't flow cross. If you get any concessions out of your opponents during this time please point it out in speech.
5. K's:
Not very familiar with them. I'm also very skeptical about whether they should be used in PF or not. I would advise not running them unless you can explain it really well.
6. Theory:
I'm more familiar with theory but I will only vote off it if something was actually abusive. I'm more receptive to things like condo bad but not such much to things like disclosure theory. Like K's, you need to explain this well if you want me to vote on this.
What I want to see:
1. Extend Impacts:
It is hard to evaluate an argument if the impacts are not extended. Don't make me do work for you.
2. Weighing:
The less weighing that is done the more I have to evaluate the importance of impacts based on my own beliefs. Tell me why your impacts matter more. Things like magnitude, scope, time frame, urgency, uniqueness, clarity of link, etc are all very helpful (although don't just use them as buzzwords actually explain to me how they apply).
3. Signpost:
Please be clear on where you are on the flow. A roadmap also helps especially if you're going to be reading overviews or starting with frontlines in rebuttal.
4. Clash:
Please interact with your opponents' arguments. Otherwise, I will have to intervene to resolve debates which will result in a decision you are probably unhappy with.
5. Warrants:
Provide clear reasoning for your arguments. I am more inclined to buy an argument the better warranted it is.
How I tend to vote:
I tend to find myself voting more on probability/link level when I find no distinguishable difference in the impacts.
I'm more inclined to vote for a team that has a stronger link story that is well warranted and/or has done more work to frontline responses on the link.
I also tend to lean towards teams that engage with their opponents' arguments. I hate it when teams extend through ink. Even if your opponents are being nonresponsive, still explain to me why those arguments are nonresponsive.
I only vote off of risk of offense as a last resort in scenarios in which both team's links get super muddled.
I generally evaluate the round by going in order of highest impact args to lowest and asking myself if I feel comfortable voting there or not. I usually don't feel comfortable voting on certain args if there are very glaring responses that you dropped/did not frontline.
Misc:
I tend to be more tech > truth.
I also default to util unless you provide a different way of weighing that is well warranted.
Speaker points will be based on how well you debated rather than how pretty you spoke.
Please don't be rude or offensive.
If you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round.
Hello!
I am a parent judge. Please try to speak slowly or else I may not be able to write down every point.
Hey! I go to Winston Churchill HS and I've been debating for ~3 years
(pronouns are she/her)
General
- speed is fine as long as you speak clearly
- if you want me to vote off an argument make sure to extend it through all your speeches with warrants
- tech>truth but only to a reasonable extent
- frontline in 2nd rebuttal if you're the 2nd speaking team
- please WEIGH your arguments and extend impacts to your contentions
- off-time roadmaps are always helpful
- signpost! (tell me where you are on the flow)
- I don't flow cross but I might use it to evaluate speaks (except for grand cross because I think it's a waste of time)
Progressive Args
- I'll try my best to evaluate things like theory or k's but I might not understand them, so please explain them really well
- If it's obvious that you're running theory to be abusive, I'm going to drop you
- don't run dumb arguments because I'll probably be too busy laughing at you to flow
Speaks
- I will give everyone high speaks unless you make offensive remarks or you're being rude
- if you say something funny or make me laugh +1 speaks
Have fun !
Here's my email for any questions or email chains: allisonzhang311@gmail.com
Senior debater at Georgetown Day School
Please add me to the email chain(add both email please): hzhang24@gds.org, georgetowndaydebate@gmail.com
I’m primarily a kritikal debater on both sides, but I’ve run policy affs before and went for cps and das as well.
For HS novice: You should read a plan until you can give a coherent explanation of your alternative model of debate and its implications for the debate community.
In general:
-
Tech vs. truth. A dropped argument is not automatically assumed as truth unless extended and explained. I will not vote on arguments that are incoherent, even if it is dropped.
-
2AR and 2NRs need to write the ballot for me. It should paint a picture of the round rather than line by line.
-
Credible evidence is important, but it won’t matter unless you flash out the warrant and its implication for the round.
-
I find it troublesome that debaters tend to hyper-tag their cards to make claims unsupported by the card itself. If your opponent is doing so, point that out, and it will reward you greatly.
CP: You need to have a NB and extend it in the block. For competition: I’m less familiar with the competition debate. I can keep up with textual and functional, but beyond that, i.e. positional, you need to explain it to me as if I'm new to debate.
DA: Do whatever you want; I can keep up with them. Do impact comparison.
Kritiks: I will likely be familiar with most of your K lit base, so read whatever you want. But do not expect me to do any work for you. You need to explain them thoroughly to me instead of throwing out jargon. I find links that are specific to the plan more compelling than the generic usfg bad ones, but I can be persuaded otherwise. Going for the k doesn’t mean you can neglect case. Dropped case often means the aff gets access to extinction o/w, which is risky for you even when your strategy is going for “you link, you lose.”
Firstly and most importantly, it'll be difficult for me to follow your argument if you speak too fast. Speak slowly.
I prefer weighing in summary and final focus.
Crossfire matters, I flow cross, although it's not as important as the other speeches to me.
I'm not too strict on time, I'll usually give a grace period of a few seconds after you go over time in your speeches, but please try to keep track of your own time.
Extend your arguments, I also expect both teams to frontline their arguments.
I expect you all to keep track of your own prep time.
Another small thing, I don't really care what year both team's cards are from, although it would be great if both teams cross-examined each other's evidence.
I'm a lay judge but I've been judging debates for a while now. I promise I'll be unbiased and work hard as a debate judge.
Thanks.